Los Angeles Scenic Studios, Inc. v. Television Inc.

California Court of Appeal Nov 5, 1936 No. Civ. 1974Published

Before: Barnard

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the complaint sufficiently stated a cause of action without alleging the plaintiff was a licensed contractor because the exhibit in question was not necessarily a permanent part of the real property, and the findings were sufficient to support the judgment.

Issues

Whether the complaint failed to state a cause of action by omitting an allegation that the plaintiff was a duly licensed contractor under the Contractor's License Law.
Whether the trial court's findings were sufficient to support the judgment despite the absence of a specific finding that the debt remained due and owing.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“If the exhibit in question was not of such a nature that it became a fixed part of the structure in which it was located the complaint stated a cause of action”

“The findings were sufficient to support the judgment.”

[357]

BARNARD, P. J.

This is an action upon a contract. Paragraph V of the complaint reads as follows :

“That on or about the 25th da.y of May, 1935, said plaintiff entered into an express agreement with defendants whereby said plaintiff was to erect, construct and build for the defendants that certain exhibit known as the Television Exhibit (building), located in the Electrical Products Building of the California Pacific International Exposition in the city of San Diego, county of San Diego, state of California ; that pursuant to said agreement plaintiff did erect, construct and build the said exhibit (building) hereinbefore referred to; that the agreed price for said erection, construction and building of said exhibit (building) was the sum of two thousand eighty-four and 47/100 ($2,084.47) dollars, plus the California sales tax in the amount of twenty ($20.00) dollars.”

The court found that the defendants Procunier, Cusack and Bolger were copartners doing business under the name of Television Company; that on May 25, 1935, the plaintiff entered into an express agreement with these defendants “whereby said plaintiff was to erect, construct and build for the defendants that certain exhibit known as the Television Exhibit, located in the Electric Products Building of the California Pacific International Exposition in the city of San Diego, County of San Diego, State of California; that pursuant to said agreement plaintiff did erect, construct and build the said exhibit hereinbefore referred to; that the agreed price for said erection, construction and building of said exhibit was the sum of $2,000.00”; that payment had been demanded; and that these defendants had failed and refused to pay to the plaintiff the said sum or any part thereof. Judgment was entered on February 5, 1936, for $2,000 with interest and costs. In the clerk’s transcript appears an order granting a motion for a new trial as to the defendant Procunier on the ground of insufficiency of the evidence, denying the motion as' to the defendants Cusack and Bolger, and ordering the plaintiff to amend its complaint by interlining the word “building” in three places in paragraph V of the complaint. The interlineations thus ordered appear in parentheses in the above copy of paragraph V, and the words so added did

[358]

Los Angeles Scenic Studios, Inc. v. Television Inc.

AI Brief

BARNARD, P. J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief